X-COM Firaxis - XCOM: Enemy Unknown + Enemy Within Expansion

[Grunker]

There is a huge fucking difference between "good tactical combat" and "tactical combat." I think this discussion is pointless, though, I'm not sure I see where we gonna get with it.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

So they've simplified a bunch of mechanics, made the game easier to learn and quicker to play, typical streamlining etc. etc. Is this really a surprise? We were never going to get a flat UFO remake for a plethora of reasons. Gaming fashion has changed, computer games are far more popular / mainstream than they were 20 years ago (i.e. not played by sweating grognards but by normal people), UFO is its own game and doesn't need cloning, and UFO might be awesome but it's also complicated, slow and fiddly to play which would mean 90% of modern console gamers would pick it up, flap about for 10 minutes then get bored and switch it off. Can you really see anybody even attempting a mainstream turn based strategy - with the associated heavy investment in marketing and production values - without attempting to understand and incorporate the core gamer demographic? That would be suicidal for a commercial venture that aims to make money rather than make 10 grumpy old guys happy. We all know the success of modern 'popamole' gaming standards. On what planet would Firaxis not attempt to capture this market? In what kind of mad idealism was it going to be any other way?

In any case, what this sacrifices in complexity and depth it will use to make the gameplay smoother, quicker, and less frustrating. If they can successfully funnel the tactical decisions so that options are still present without requiring dedicated study of the system to master, then the game will have succeeded in its aim and will probably be fun enough to play. It's a different game, but that's not necessarily terrible - the original isn't going anywhere. And who knows, if this dumbs down successfully enough to capture that core audience and whet their appetite for more, it might signal a turn based renaissance rather than ruining everything.

 

[Grunker]

Yeah, and that's called pedantry. We aren't talking about checkers we're talking about a tactical game using guns. And no, the result won't be a tactical game, it will be a game where your actions have no real meaning because positioning isn't going to matter and 100 other things I won't bother trying to explain but which are obvious if you'd tried to play out front line tactics on pnp.

Baldur's Gate is a real-time game in which positioning matters hugely.

Starcraft is another.

 

[Cassidy]

[...]It's a different game, but that's not necessarily terrible - the original isn't going anywhere. And who knows, if this dumbs down successfully enough to capture that core audience and whet their appetite for more, it might signal a turn based renaissance rather than ruining everything.

I was considering to make a dedicated rebuttal but no. To anybody blind and naive enough to have such a hope I can't see why put the effort to answer it with more than:

 

[Grunker]

Cassidy is always an asshole, but in this case it doesn't make him wrong. You seriously believe that a stream-lined X-COM will herald the dawn of a new turn-based era?

And speculating into the insane; even if it did, what kind of turn-based "renaissance" would that be? JA2-remakeish slim-line "tactical" games?

if this dumbs down successfully enough to capture that core audience and whet their appetite for more

Basically what you're saying is "don't worry guys they might like this dumbed-down bullshit and if so we'll get even more shitty turn-based games!"

 

[Cassidy]

Grunker, which game you're a fanboy of did I unleash the skyway into? People that lack thick skin and take the Internet as FUCKING SERIOUS BUSINESS should move to RPGWatch.

Also, I'll make a more likely prediction: That Activision and EA will take a look the the "unlimited ammo" feature of this game, it won't tank and therefore they'll conclude: "Wow these INNOVASHUNS truly worked so good they made even a turn-based game popular! I think we could streamline our games even more!". And thus, indirectly it will inspire the newer AAA action games to have the same feature of unlimited ammo as well, just like Gears of War, although not being a first person shooter, influenced fully all of them.

 

[Infinitron]

I still haven't seen anybody reply to the idea that having only the "two action points" in some ways increases the challenge. It means you have to make every movement count, and you have to make every shot count - because you aren't going to be able to develop an ubermensch with massive TUs that can run around the map killing everything.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Gaming fashion has changed, computer games are far more popular / mainstream than they were 20 years ago (i.e. not played by sweating grognards but by normal people)...

I hear you, bro.

That would be suicidal for a commercial venture that aims to make money rather than make 10 grumpy old guys happy. We all know the success of modern 'popamole' gaming standards. On what planet would Firaxis not attempt to capture this market? In what kind of mad idealism was it going to be any other way?

That's what they said about XCOM : ENFORCER : FUCK YEAH!

 

[Average Manatee]

I can't remember the last time I ran out of ammo in Xcom. Usually the mission ends and not a single person has used up their whole magazine, and I have 2 or 3 on each.

Still huge all around though.

I still haven't seen anybody reply to the idea that having only the "two action points" in some ways increases the challenge. It means you have to make every movement count, and you have to make every shot count - because you aren't going to be able to develop an ubermensch with massive TUs that can run around the map killing everything.

TUs to fire a weapon were a % of total TUs in Xcom. The slowest person fired no faster than the fastest person (discounting round off error that gave you extra shots per turn at random TU levels). TUs as a stat were merely a movement speed mechanic.

 

[Spectacle]

If this game does well, it is far from unreasonable that mainstream publishers will consider producing more turn based games. "Follow the leader" is pretty much the mantra of the entire vidja gaem "industry".

Hmm. switching to "move and shoot" means it will no longer be possible to move out of cover, shoot then move back before the enemies turn. In shooters we call that such mechanics "popamole"

 

[Infinitron]

Hmm. switching to "move and shoot" means it will no longer be possible to move out of cover, shoot then move back before the enemies turn. In shooters we call that such mechanics "popamole"

It'll be IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE COVER and that's popamole??

(I doubt that will be the case btw, probably ducking won't count as a "real" action)

 

[Cassidy]

Yeah coupled with unlimited ammo means this will be a great game. I can't wait to play Modern Warfare 7 with the same feature because all those numbers of ammo make my head hurt and obviously they want a challenging game not a chore of the tedious micromanagement of ammo when they stated this new innovation.

 

[Drakron]

Who said there is unlimited ammo?

 

[sser]

Not all the details are out, but so far this looks like an unbelievably shitty turn-based strategy game. What the fuck is the point of going turn-based if you're going to drop all the tactical, thought-out elements that come with the genre? Fucking ridiculous. Might as well have just made an RTS for fuckssake.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

I don't seriously believe that this will herald the dawn of a new turn-based era, but I certainly think it's no more unlikely than the absurd doom-mongering of people who think this will kill turn based games FOREVER because they took out action points.

Honestly, if this is shit it's shit. It's simply a fact that anyone expecting a sudden and total elimination of modern mainstream game design elements in a modern mainstream game is being a deeply silly individual, no matter the genre.

Look at it this way: they could have made this a real-time action game with the awesome button. They didn't. Isn't that *something* good? Isn't it a little bit OK that a mainstream Western developer actually realised that there are other genres apart from popamole? Oh no sorry, I forgot that 'shit' is a binary absolute value for a second there

 

[Average Manatee]

If its does shitty then it "proves" to publishers that only FPSs and Majestic RPGs sell, meaning we get even more of those next year.

 

[Infinitron]

Not all the details are out, but so far this looks like an unbelievably shitty turn-based strategy game. What the fuck is the point of going turn-based if you're going to drop all the tactical, thought-out elements that come with the genre? Fucking ridiculous. Might as well have just made an RTS for fuckssake.

What's this about "elements that come with the genre"?
The purest turn-based game:

Again, I believe they are taking the game from a "simulationist" to more of a boardgame direction. I don't think this necessarily has to make the game less cerebral - but we're all simulation junkies here on the Codex, so the result might bore us.

 

[Drakron]

In this game you select guarding as an action, too. Long story short this game will come down to luring out enemies one at a time then shooting them, or standup missions where you just shoot and shoot. It's not any more tactical than any typical JRPG, less so than some of them that have lots of options.

To start, you could do that before by staying in the Skyranger and wait until the Aliens come to you ... it might happened and you would finish the game at the 25th billion turn, depends on the AI deciding to go to you or just roam about.

Second, the game seems to have some kind of cover system and LoS system as the screens seem to be using the shield as a icon were terrain and position is what makes then being in or out of cover.

Third comes the so called unlimited ammo, one of the screens shows the LMG icon being half filled and that to me is a indication there is no unlimited ammo.

But hey haters gonna hate ... right?

 

[Black]

More bald spehs marens on Earth.

 

[Cassidy]

Unlimited Reloads. Magazines empty but you can reload them as many times as you want, which is pretty much the same as Unlimited Ammo.

Seriously, why are you putting so much effort to defend a remake of a game that doesn't even need a remake in the first place?

 

[someone else]

Third comes the so called unlimited ammo, one of the screens shows the LMG icon being half filled and that to me is a indication there is no unlimited ammo.

Ammo unlimited outside magazine.

Ammo is abstracted. You're assumed to be carrying enough clips to reload as much as you want, but it takes a turn to do so.

So we don't have to unload our plasma guns at the end of Xcom. But in Apoc, ever single bullet is accounted for a distributed into full magazines.

 

[Drakron]

Unlimited Reloads. Magazines empty but you can reload them as many times as you want, which is pretty much the same as Unlimited Ammo.

Ammo unlimited outside magazine.

You are right, that is unlimited ammo outside the magazine.

Seriously, why are you putting so much effort to defend a remake of a game that doesn't even need a remake in the first place?

Because there is barely any info and I said before, this is damage control over having fucked up the IP with the X-Com FPS reboot.

The X-Com FPS re-boot is going to happen, we certainly do not like it but its STILL going to happen so you prefer that was the last X-Com game? Its not like what comes out since Terror from the Deep was not a road into mediocrity and then shit .... Apocalypse, Interceptor and then Enforcer.

And another thing, the Codex is very fast on "Its shit" proclamations just by looking at a screenshoot, I never take the Codex opinion on anything because otherwise I would be playing nothing but Obsidian games (like the "Diamond in the rough" Alpha Protocol) and indy games.

I will always give them a fair deal, I even given that to Alpha Protocol and this X-Com EU might proven to be a disparagement but I sure as hell I am not Shitotradamus that proclaims everything is shit unless Chris Avallon or another of the "Prophets" were involved on it.

 

[sser]

What's this about "elements that come with the genre"?
The purest turn-based game:

...

Again, I believe they are taking the game from a "simulationist" to more of a boardgame direction. I don't think this necessarily has to make the game less cerebral - but we're all simulation junkies here on the Codex, so the result might bore us.

I'm speaking in terms of PC gaming. If you want to filter your concepts of turn-based into pure, mushy drivel you can go a lot further than checkers. It does very little to the conversation other than to show why something like Chess is way superior to something like Checkers. What they are doing here is not taking a simulation and making it a simpler board game. That's ridiculous. The original X-Com was not even close to a simulation style of gameplay. It used very basic, accessible game design -- a fairly big reason people play it almost twenty-years later. I really do like that they're trying turn-based, but that does not mean it gets an automatic pass --- people seem to have forgotten that there are such things as shitty, bad turn-based strategy games. You know, like that wave of bad WWII turn-based games cashing in on the patriotic-trope filled years of post-Saving Private Ryan. Or like this game cashing in an old IP while its FPS-bastard cousin gets the vast majority of the development resources... ... ...

What the game looks like is a very thin boundary between RTS and turn-based gaming style. Numbers don't make a game a simulation, they just add immense variability. You know, like looking through your recruits and deciding who is good at shooting or throwing or braving intense fire or whatever else. Throwing guys off the team because they can't handle the horror of seeing people blown to bits. Wondering if it's a good idea to take a crack-shot teammate when he has the mental fortitude of a wet noodle. And developing these people in ways you can see. Like a guy who sucks at throwing at the start is awesome by the end. Not, he sucks at throwing, but I made him a *GRENADIER* so now he's awesome at it because that's *WHAT GRENADIER'S DO*. And here's his perks to separate him from the handful of other class roles. Almost as if the unit had come out of a barracks in an RTS... like a built-ordered soldier... a sniper... a rocketman...

Hell, if it turns out good it will be good. This is just my opinion of it right now. I don't subscribe to the "I'll take what I can get" crowd nor the "Pure, hardcore simulations only!". The game just looks like shit to me until I see otherwise.

 

[Marobug]

Seriously, why are you putting so much effort to defend a remake of a game that doesn't even need a remake in the first place?

That's the fucking point. If I wanted a identical clone, I'd just play the original instead. This is a new take on the game so I'm curious about it, regardless of whether or not I'm going to like the final result.
Talking about it like it's going to be a cancer or something is just retarded. Don't care, don't play it. The xcom ip is already being buttfucked by 2k marin as we speak so who gives a shit about it? What we know about this game is very little, so how can we say taking feature X out of the box is retarded when we don't even know how the final game will be ? It seems people are assuming the gameplay is identical except for certain things they will either dumb down or get rid of althogether. Fact is, we don't know shit and the only way to know exactly how things will play is by, you guessed it, playing the damn thing.

 

[Renegen]

So they basically got rid of the RPG elements of this game and made it a simplified strategy game. I'd argue the RPG elements made X-Com so unique. You kind of have to think about it, what's a strategy game without tactical options? The average tactical jRPG probably has more choices than this now, it's sad. Overall, it's just depressing that they are just following the same destruction of RPG staples like every other developer, it's like it's a conspiracy.